Bill To Block Norwegian, Says They Risk Your Life

enilria · Tue May 24, 2016 1:13 am

This is the crazier BS I've ever seen.

"The ticket may be cheaper,'' DeFazio (Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the House Transportation Committee) said. "You just may not get there alive."

A consultant to Norwegian Air, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State John Byerly, said the bill sponsors "more or less bought the lines from the union opponents of NAI, hook, line and sinker."

A request by a new international airline to fly to the U.S. pits the Obama administration against organized labor and its Republican ally: U.S. Rep. Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey

The chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, LoBiondo and others introduced legislation to prevent Norwegian Air International from flying to the U.S. The lawmakers contend that the airline's business model violates labor protections embedded in the U.S.-European Union agreement that ended most barriers to trans-Atlantic flights.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf...p_with_unions_against_obama_a.html

[Edited 2016-05-23 18:25:47]

TWA902fly · Tue May 24, 2016 1:29 am

Quoting enilria (Thread starter):
DeFazio (Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.),

As far as I understand, as a US representative, you're supposed to represent your constituents' interests. Whether or not you support Norwegian, nor what party you're affiliated with, I really do not see how the people of west-central Oregon, which he represents, give a damn about this. Norwegian flies nowhere near it's biggest city of Eugene, and not a single job in the district will be affected should Norwegian be allowed to expand in the methods it pleases.

Maybe safety-wise they expect a stray DY 787 to fall out of the sky and hit a school in Eugene??

Even without my sarcastic response, this is absurd. Norwegian's safety record is great. I assume this is pure response to lobbying from various airlines, who may or may not be contributing to several of the Transportation Committee's campaigns next time they're up for re-election.

Unfair competition due to cost? Maybe at best (especially based on companies in other industries operating in the US)

Taking away jobs from Americans? Doubtful. As far as I understand, DY current employs US-based crews.

Pissing off airlines on both sides of the Atlantic? Certainty. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the European majors are lobbying US Congress in addition to the US carriers.

Risking lives? No. And I doubt it's a real concern. They don't seem to be too concerned with Allegiant, for example. And if they really cared and wanted to get the under-educated public involved, the recent EgyptAir crash would be a great PR opportunity for the congressmen to at least start with banning EgyptAir's flight to JFK.

Again, whether or not you support the way Norwegian is attempting to run it's business, I call bullshit on this one.

'902

enilria · Tue May 24, 2016 1:41 am

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 2):
Maybe safety-wise they expect a stray DY 787 to fall out of the sky and hit a school in Eugene??

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 2):
Even without my sarcastic response, this is absurd. Norwegian's safety record is great.

According to an independent airline safety rating site, Norwegian is about the same safety level as Delta, ahead of United by a considerable amount, and way ahead of AA/US.

http://www.jacdec.de/airline-safety-ranking-2015/

BTW, public enemy #1, EK, is #2 in the world for safety rating.

lesfalls · Tue May 24, 2016 2:18 am

Makes me wonder why we haven't seen any U.S carriers saying anything against WW.

enilria · Tue May 24, 2016 2:21 am

Quoting lesfalls (Reply 4):

Makes me wonder why we haven't seen any U.S carriers saying anything against WW.

Actually I saw something about how increased air tourism to Iceland is hurting the environment! Not kidding.

MIflyer12 · Tue May 24, 2016 2:29 am

Lots of bills get introduced that have about zero chance of becoming law. It's just an element of the system. This is not the dumbest bill that will be proposed in this Congressional session.

toltommy · Tue May 24, 2016 2:32 am

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 2):
Maybe safety-wise they expect a stray DY 787 to fall out of the sky and hit a school in Eugene??

You'd think he'd be more worried about G4, who actually flies out of EUG.

TWA902fly · Tue May 24, 2016 2:55 am

Quoting toltommy (Reply 7):
You'd think he'd be more worried about G4, who actually flies out of EUG.

Exactly.

'902

OB1504 · Tue May 24, 2016 3:05 am

Allegiant risks your life. Norwegian only threatens your livelihood.

I despise Norwegian's flag of convenience scheme, but I don't have any concerns about their safety and think this is a BS argument.

Mir · Tue May 24, 2016 4:58 am

Quoting enilria (Thread starter):
"The ticket may be cheaper,'' DeFazio (Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the House Transportation Committee) said. "You just may not get there alive."

Oh wow. I'm glad he introduced the bill, I support it, I hope it passes, but this sort of language is not productive.

It's true that the Irish authorities have not attempted to regulate an operation the size of the one Norwegian wants from afar before. But they have a perfectly good track record so far, and until they prove they can't handle it the safety argument really is specious.

-Mir

bjorn14 · Tue May 24, 2016 6:15 am

All those union Boeing employees are being insulted and might lose their jobs as NAI outsources all their mx on the 787 to Boeing. Just another dumb Congresscritter trying to show his constituents that he is worth his $179,000 salary right before elections.

tozairport · Tue May 24, 2016 6:26 am

Quoting enilria (Reply 3):
According to an independent airline safety rating site, Norwegian is about the same safety level as Delta, ahead of United by a considerable amount, and way ahead of AA/US.

Seriously? United is the only, the only, global US airline to not have a pilot caused fatality since 1978. The Concorde was one of the safest airplanes in the sky... unitl it crashed. Dumb safety ratings like that site only play to those that believe anything they read on the internet. NAI is using a flag of conienience to hire pilot with dubious qualifications. Everything will work out fine, until it doesn't.

bennett123 · Tue May 24, 2016 6:30 am

Given they fly into the US perhaps he should ask what the FAA is doing to protect US citizens from this danger.

Just another politician in election year.

RRTrent · Tue May 24, 2016 7:22 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 10):
It's true that the Irish authorities have not attempted to regulate an operation the size of the one Norwegian wants from afar before.

The Irish authorities already regulate operations far bigger than the one DY want. This is nothing to do with regulatory standards, this is a politician who appears to be afraid of competition.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10):
Oh wow. I'm glad he introduced the bill, I support it, I hope it passes, but this sort of language is not productive.

If people like him got their way, there would be no such thing as FR, WN, B6, U2 ect.. half the people on this forum would never have had the privilege of flying before & Boeing and Airbus wouldn't have nearly the number of orders on the books as they do now, which is worth thousands of jobs in Seattle and Toulouse.

We should be thankful that there are companies/airlines out there willing to break boundaries... because the people who benefit will be us, the consumer.

Mir · Tue May 24, 2016 7:48 am

Quoting RRTrent (Reply 14):
The Irish authorities already regulate operations far bigger than the one DY want.

Such as? FR and EI don't count - they have substantial operations in Ireland and so are not being regulated from afar the way Norwegian would be.

-Mir

LTenEleven · Tue May 24, 2016 7:48 am

Some people are truly clutching at straws.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10):
It's true that the Irish authorities have not attempted to regulate an operation the size of the one Norwegian wants from afar before.

Ryanair's 350 aircraft operating from 84 bases in 20+ countries. In addition, a long history of EI- registered aircraft operating almost everywhere.

LTenEleven · Tue May 24, 2016 7:51 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
Such as? FR and EI don't count - they have substantial operations in Ireland and so are not being regulated from afar the way Norwegian would be.

Only 6% of Ryanair fleet is based at Irish airports.

RRTrent · Tue May 24, 2016 7:58 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
Such as? FR and EI don't count - they have substantial operations in Ireland and so are not being regulated from afar the way Norwegian would be.

Lets forget the fact that most of FR's fleet is based outside Ireland will we?

And what about the 1000's of aircraft owned by Irish leasing companies? does the regulation of them not count either no?

coolian2 · Tue May 24, 2016 8:08 am

Quoting LTenEleven (Reply 19):
Only 6% of Ryanair fleet is based at Irish airports.

Quoting RRTrent (Reply 20):
Lets forget the fact that most of FR's fleet is based outside Ireland will we?

And what about the 1000's of aircraft owned by Irish leasing companies? does the regulation of them not count either no?

Do they have EI- regos?

LTenEleven · Tue May 24, 2016 8:20 am

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 21):
Do they have EI- regos?

There's a long history of EI- registrations operating in Italy, Russia, and other places.

RRTrent · Tue May 24, 2016 8:36 am

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 21):
Do they have EI- regos?

Many of them do yes. And all of FR's aircraft do too, regardless of where they are based.

Anyway, I cant see what Irish regulation of DY has to do with a single politicians will to have "Dem durty foreigners" kept out. I don't know how safety has been brought into the matter... it might be all those rickety new Boeing's that DY operate. The fact that xenophobic views such as Mr DeFazio's still exist in 2016, in a country as diverse as the US is really saying something.

[Edited 2016-05-24 01:47:22]

intotheair · Tue May 24, 2016 8:44 am

DeFazio is a hack. He's always finding a way to get his face in the papers and frequently uses this annoying form of sarcasm to make his arguments when speaking.

nighthawk · Tue May 24, 2016 9:00 am

Wasn't there an issue a few years back whereby a leased aircraft with an EI registration crashed while operating in a foreign country, and the Irish authorities basically admitted they didn't have the resources to monitor all of the aircraft supposedly under their supervision?

RRTrent · Tue May 24, 2016 9:04 am

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 25):
Wasn't there an issue a few years back whereby a leased aircraft with an EI registration crashed while operating in a foreign country, and the Irish authorities basically admitted they didn't have the resources to monitor all of the aircraft supposedly under their supervision?

Cant say I know the specific case your speaking of, but the Metrojet crash in Egypt was EI-ETJ

eurowings · Tue May 24, 2016 9:42 am

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 25):

Wasn't there an issue a few years back whereby a leased aircraft with an EI registration crashed while operating in a foreign country, and the Irish authorities basically admitted they didn't have the resources to monitor all of the aircraft supposedly under their supervision?

I don't know the case you're referring to but Ireland does not have to take full responsibility for Irish registered aircraft leased to foreign operators.

Under Article 83bis of the Chicago Convention, regulatory oversight can be transferred from Ireland to the operator's country. This does indeed happen, Irish registered aircraft with Russian operators are regulated locally. However, Ireland also took part in the Metrojet investigation.

[Edited 2016-05-24 02:43:45]

mjoelnir · Tue May 24, 2016 9:51 am

What does the USA congress want? A trade war with the EU/EEA? Prepared to discard an international agreement? Throw out the open sky agreement?

What should the reaction of the EEA countries be, not agree on any new route for an USA airline?

The DOT tried to find a contractual reason to be able to refuse Norwegian and came up empty handed. Such a law as talked about here, your President has to veto, or nobody can take the USA serious regarding international agreements.

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 25):
Wasn't there an issue a few years back whereby a leased aircraft with an EI registration crashed while operating in a foreign country, and the Irish authorities basically admitted they didn't have the resources to monitor all of the aircraft supposedly under their supervision?

Both Ireland and the USA have a lot in common regarding being a flag of convenience, both EI and N registered airliners operate in a lot of countries.
I expect it will happen once in a while that an aircraft with a EI or N registration will crash being owned by a leasing company and operated by some foreign airline.

There is a difference between the usual EI registered aircraft owned by a leasing company and Norwegian owning an airline registered in Ireland. I assume that in the case of an airline registered in Ireland the authorities have more input in the safety of the aircraft.

[Edited 2016-05-24 03:19:37]

mjoelnir · Tue May 24, 2016 10:48 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
The Irish authorities already regulate operations far bigger than the one DY want.

Such as? FR and EI don't count - they have substantial operations in Ireland and so are not being regulated from afar the way Norwegian would be.

Such as the airlines you named. Most of their operations is outside of Ireland. So why should it be more difficult to regulate a Norwegian 787 operating out of LGW than a RyanAir 737 operating out of STN?

Mir · Tue May 24, 2016 11:08 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 28):
What should the reaction of the EEA countries be, not agree on any new route for an USA airline?

Of course not, they'd have no grounds to do that. If a US airline decides to offshore its labor on a flight to the EEA, then we can have the discussion again because that's a different matter. But no US airline is contemplating such a thing at the moment (and US operational control and wet-leasing rules would make it rather difficult anyway).

-Mir

enilria · Tue May 24, 2016 11:20 am

Quoting RRTrent (Reply 13):
We should be thankful that there are companies/airlines out there willing to break boundaries... because the people who benefit will be us, the consumer.

Actually, the higher air fares are, the lower the demand for air travel, the smaller the industry becomes, and the fewer people are employed by it. So it's also bad for employees and unions.

Quoting RRTrent (Reply 23):
Cant say I know the specific case your speaking of, but the Metrojet crash in Egypt was EI-ETJ

That's just where the leasing company was located. No impact on safety review.

mjoelnir · Tue May 24, 2016 11:50 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 27):
What should the reaction of the EEA countries be, not agree on any new route for an USA airline?

Of course not, they'd have no grounds to do that. If a US airline decides to offshore its labor on a flight to the EEA, then we can have the discussion again because that's a different matter. But no US airline is contemplating such a thing at the moment (and US operational control and wet-leasing rules would make it rather difficult anyway).

-Mir

Very simple, if the USA is breaking the Open Sky Agreement than USA airlines have to expect retaliation.

tjwgrr · Tue May 24, 2016 12:39 pm

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 1):
As far as I understand, as a US representative, you're supposed to represent your constituents' interests

LOL... when has that happened in the last 25-30 years? D.C. is nothing more than a huge old boys and girls club- you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle who are only concerned with protecting their power and piece of the pie. Follow the money and power trails on this issue.... I guarantee there's lobbyists behind the scenes influencing DeFazio far more than pressure from his constituents.

BestWestern · Tue May 24, 2016 1:00 pm

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 22):
Wasn't there an issue a few years back whereby a leased aircraft with an EI registration crashed while operating in a foreign country, and the Irish authorities basically admitted they didn't have the resources to monitor all of the aircraft supposedly under their supervision?

Again, ad nausium, Ireland has a higher ICAO rating score than the USA.

Mortyman · Tue May 24, 2016 1:16 pm

Laughable !

No matter what you think of Norwegian, one should not throw accusations like the ones Peter DeFazio throws around. It just shows once again what kind of people Norwegian is up against and it's nothing but discusting behaviour !

Peter DeFazio by the way is one ofthe politicians who has receaved the most money from the airline industry and unions. Another one who who has been equally loud and has receaved even more money is Frank Lobiondo.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 11):
to hire pilot with dubious qualifications.

You have NO valid source for this kind of BS

[Edited 2016-05-24 06:17:52]

georgiaame · Tue May 24, 2016 1:21 pm

[quote=TWA902fly,reply=1] I really do not see how the people of west-central Oregon, which he represents, give a damn about this.

Well, they probably don't. In American politics, it's all about how much bribe money the lobbyists have paid you to say what they want you to say. And is many cases, it isn't a particularly large sum. Should make a lot of sense now. I just wish this allegedly dangerous airline would give my boys at Delta a run for their money.

pvjin · Tue May 24, 2016 1:22 pm

Quoting tozairport (Reply 11):
Seriously? United is the only, the only, global US airline to not have a pilot caused fatality since 1978. The Concorde was one of the safest airplanes in the sky... unitl it crashed. Dumb safety ratings like that site only play to those that believe anything they read on the internet. NAI is using a flag of conienience to hire pilot with dubious qualifications. Everything will work out fine, until it doesn't.

Yep, the fact is that aviation has become much safer than it was mere couple of decades ago. Thus any "safety" statistic which simply compares amount of accidents between airlines is just plain useless. Ones that take the number of flights flown into account are better, but even then they hardly tell us that much about the actual safety of any airline today.

I don't think Norwegian is worse than other European low cost airlines though.

usflyguy · Tue May 24, 2016 1:36 pm

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 1):
As far as I understand, as a US representative, you're supposed to represent your constituents' interests. Whether or not you support Norwegian, nor what party you're affiliated with, I really do not see how the people of west-central Oregon, which he represents, give a damn about this. Norwegian flies nowhere near it's biggest city of Eugene, and not a single job in the district will be affected should Norwegian be allowed to expand in the methods it pleases.

So, if a constituent's representative isn't on a certain committee, they shouldn't have a say in the dealings of that committee? He's a ranking member of the transportation committee, he has duties beyond just his constituents.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 32):
It just shows once again what kind of people Norwegian is up against and it's nothing but discusting behaviour !

Or Thailand-based crews. It's not about the Norwegian's, as evidenced by NAI's operation to the US over the last few years. It's about using Thai-based crews to operate flights that have absolutely nothing to do with the flights in question.

WaywardMemphian · Tue May 24, 2016 1:53 pm

I'm shocked he left out sub par hotels for pilots.

RRTrent · Tue May 24, 2016 1:59 pm

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 35):
Or Thailand-based crews.

DY use US based crews for flights to the US.

ual777 · Tue May 24, 2016 2:00 pm

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 1):
fair competition due to cost? Maybe at best (especially based on companies in other industries operating in the US)

Taking away jobs from Americans? Doubtful. As far as I understand, DY current employs US-based crews.

They hire a few FAs in NY. That's it. They employ their pilots through contract firms and their wages are shockingly low. I for one hope the EU gets their economy together. Once that happens NAI will dissapear for lack of pilots or will have to pay more. A lot more.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 29):

Very simple, if the USA is breaking the Open Sky Agreement than USA airlines have to expect retaliation

Over a dubiously operated LCC? Not going to happen.

flybynight · Tue May 24, 2016 3:46 pm

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 1):
Taking away jobs from Americans? Doubtful. As far as I understand, DY current employs US-based crews

In fact, it supports Boeing with all those 787's and 737's DY flies.

rbavfan · Tue May 24, 2016 4:47 pm

Quoting lesfalls (Reply 3):

So WOW got BmiBaby's old airline code.

rbavfan · Tue May 24, 2016 4:56 pm

Quoting tozairport (Reply 11):

Wow do deaths sense 1978. Glad you did not say International airline. That would be Hawaiin with no fatalities ever. But thats only 87 years.

bjorn14 · Tue May 24, 2016 5:00 pm

Apparently, Hillary Clinton has decided to weigh in on the issue. Opposes Obama's position.

http://www.thelocal.no/20160523/hill...ton-wants-to-block-norwegian-in-us

TWA902fly · Tue May 24, 2016 5:01 pm

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 35):
So, if a constituent's representative isn't on a certain committee, they shouldn't have a say in the dealings of that committee? He's a ranking member of the transportation committee, he has duties beyond just his constituents.

You must have missed the part where I mentioned the first part of my response was sarcastic.

But anyways, the point stands. Even as part of the committee, whose duties involve transportation-related issues within the United States, this is still absurd. The committee's duties, and specifically the aviation subcommittee (of which he is the chairman) do not cover protecting the interests of US-based airlines. They do however, cover many aspects of aviation safety. So it appears by claiming DY to be a safety risk, he's pretending to stay within the bounds of the subcommittee's duties. It's so easy to see through the motives here, for us a.net members, but the fact that he's trying to sell this to the uninformed general public and his house colleagues - I call BS.

'902

LTenEleven · Tue May 24, 2016 5:02 pm

Quoting ual777 (Reply 38):

They hire a few FAs in NY. That's it. They employ their pilots through contract firms and their wages are shockingly low. I for one hope the EU gets their economy together. Once that happens NAI will dissapear for lack of pilots or will have to pay more. A lot more.

Because these people have are chained to DY's aircraft and have no freedom to leave?

Quoting Mir (Reply 27):
Of course not, they'd have no grounds to do that. If a US airline decides to offshore its labor on a flight to the EEA, then we can have the discussion again because that's a different matter. But no US airline is contemplating such a thing at the moment (and US operational control and wet-leasing rules would make it rather difficult anyway).

It would be very naive to not expect retaliation for a unilateral denial outside the scope of what at least one of the two signatories understands was agreed.

Danfearn77 · Tue May 24, 2016 5:16 pm

Amazing. And this guy is in elected office. Comical.

bgm · Tue May 24, 2016 5:31 pm

Quoting Danfearn77 (Reply 45):
Amazing. And this guy is in elected office. Comical.

Welcome to American politics.

flyoregon · Tue May 24, 2016 6:20 pm

DeFazio is a clown-- like most Oregon politicians. He's uneducated and part of "the political system" with nothing to contribute other than lobbyist driven agendas. I hate to get in a political thing here, but he's a great reason why term limits are needed.

scbriml · Tue May 24, 2016 6:35 pm

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 8):
Norwegian only threatens your livelihood.

They don't threaten my livelihood. How do they threaten yours?

Quoting RRTrent (Reply 37):
DY use US based crews for flights to the US.

Let's try to not let facts get in the way of protectionism and scaremongering.

enilria · Tue May 24, 2016 7:50 pm

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 32):
Quoting tozairport (Reply 11):
to hire pilot with dubious qualifications.

You have NO valid source for this kind of BS

Quoting scbriml (Reply 48):

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 8):
Norwegian only threatens your livelihood.

They don't threaten my livelihood. How do they threaten yours?

Quoting RRTrent (Reply 37):
DY use US based crews for flights to the US.

Let's try to not let facts get in the way of protectionism and scaremongering.

Plus they are heavily subsidized by the Norwegian oil King who won't let women drive, flies his drones too close to the airport, and won't allow employees to call in sick on Japanese holidays. --- This message paid for by the Partnership for Fair Skies.

[Edited 2016-05-24 13:12:14]

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net